Dh keeps doing something I don't like in bed

[Moochicken]

Without wanting to go into too much detail, dh keeps doing something during sex which I don't like. I ask him not to and after a few minutes he does it anyway.

It doesn't happen every time but he did it again last night. He apologized after and said he won't do it again (he says this everytime) and now he can't understand why I'm still pissed off.

How seriously would you take this? If I said no and stopped sex he would listen and would never force me to do something but I still feel uncomfortable that he basically ignores my wishes.

Contrarian, I think you're minimising things and patronising people.

During sex he will indicate to me that he would like to have this particular thing done

See, that's how it's done.
Not doing it and then the other person having to stop it.

It's not that difficult.

I understand that 90% of the times a person may say no to one thing, but 10% of the times will say yes.

So, ask first.

If a person says no 10% of the times and yes 90% of the times, still ask first.

If a person has only said no once, still ask first.

If a person has never been asked, ask first.

Oral sex is not only about using our mouths in the other person's genitals. Our mouths are primarily used to ask for consent where the other person has given no indication of wanting it first.

I'm not minimising things. I can explain things for you, but I can't understand them for you (that is patronising). The ONE thing I'd really like to get across in this exchange - which is why my posts may seem patronising to some - is that although there is broad agreement that the ops husband is acting unreasonably/unacceptably, the rhetoric here is so strong that she is no longer particpating in the thread.

Whilst I can see and appreciate the need to call a spade a spade (a term I said incidentally MAY have racists connotations - I was aware of the dispute) if the purpose of the forum is to help people understand what is and isn't reasonable and unreasonable, then it needs to be done in a more considered manner.

I use myself as a case in point. I stuck with it (after some pretty awful bullying) and found it useful. Many people wouldn't. In that sense, that knee-jerk response (however correct it might be in terms of intention) was actually incorrect.

There us some blurred lines here... He knows she wants it coz she's a good girl.

Lewiji By what, waving his c0ck in her face, pushing her head down? (Assuming it's a BJ) Is that acceptable?

Also, although the op's husband is doing so for his own gratification (rightly or wrongly) he's doing it to the op, not her to him.

For what it's worth, my wife and I seem to go about things by way of excluding them at the time, rather than mapping out beforehand or seeking specific consent prior to the event. I'm not saying it's right or wrong, it's just the way we do it.

Thanks for the concern but I'm fine. I wanted to know if fickle can apply to men as well or does it as suggested earlier require a uterus.

There'sno dispute that spade a slade may or may not be racist, it predates using spade to mean black by a long time. You're one of those people who wants to try to make the truth sound debatable so you don't look mistsken, aren't you?

Thank you for telling us what is or isn't the correct response to have to your words, Master. Please dictate to me how I ahould react to everything.

You are totally mansplaining, as TheSecondComing says. Telling women what women are like and what women feel. Slow hand clap.

Of course you are minimising it
You are actively referring to women as fickle and setting this up as a norm: "how are we poor men supposed to know when the little lady changes her mind all the time?"

I for one am willing to put forward (but not to accept as an excuse) the idea that men who push for certain things during sex despite the woman having made it clear it is a no-go area are thick about how to respond to women and are getting it wrong, but really, how often does a man have to get it wrong for it to tip over into something far more akin to assault than mere sexual ineptitude? Do you let it go once, twice, twenty times?

Clearly there is a boundary and it is actually easy to draw the line at 'no I don't want to do that'. Any explanation as to why a man refuses to accept that is minimising it as it immediately discounts the right of the partner to say no.

Wow, you honestly can't see a middle ground between having it mapped out and just doing it and hoping for consent after the fact??

I think Moochicken has found this thread a little overwhelming. I hope you're ok OP.

I think in this case, there is quite a simple solution. The next time the OP's H decides to stick his finger where it is not wanted, the OP should calmly get out of bed saying "I've said I don't like this. Perhaps you didn't hear it clearly enough so I'll say it in no uncertain terms again now. I do not want you to do that again. Ever. Right now it has killed any sexual desire I have so we won't be continuing with things."

If he backs off and apologises (hopefully immediately, but allowing for defensive guilt, maybe a bit later) and never does it again, result. If he even so much as puts a finger there at any point in the future (unless the OP has expressly asked him to), he is not the man the OP thought she married.

Even if this is about the H wanting the OP to do it to him, sexual experimentation can only take place in the context of being completely uninhibited. For most people that happens with trust. Trust is best earned through respect and communication. If the OP wants to initiate a frank conversation with her H about things he may like to try, first she has to feel that he will honour her boundaries. Therefore, he has to stop his unwanted acts and apologise for them before the OP offers to try anything else, rather than expect it as a response.

oxfordbags I said in my nitial post about the spade thing that is was disputed. I didn't lay it down as gospel. Still, don't let the facts get in the way of a good argument very few others here do

I'm not telling you what your response should be, but rather suggesting what I thought might be a reasonable outcome/objective and the situation in which everyone's now in (an op who's been overwhelmed by the rhetoric and left) As much as you might think I'm a sexist, there needs to be an acceptance that (even for some women) this brand of feminism - regardless of how correct you might thnk it to be - is turning some peple away from the casue. Much like the well-meaning council worker who bans Christmas in the name of equality.

as I have lost the plot can you please explain to me what brand of feminism are you relating to and how it relates to this abuse?

Ah, yes, banning Christmas, that old chesnut. Urban myth I'm afraid:
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2011/nov/08/winterval-modern-myth-christmas

However, the fact that you're prepared to cite that as an analogy for your case pretty much confirms the assessment of you as mansplaining - you're happy to argue against straw men (straw persons, straw feminists) - rather than listening to what people are actually saying to you.

MoG Well actually the reality is somewhat different. For example, Dahlen's advise is absolutely reasonable and correct. I hope the op can follow it. The fact is, that she might be feeling a little ...er... delicate when/if the situation next arises - so in reality it may not pan out that way. Though I hope it does.

Without giving too much information, for me personally, in the real world, I'd probably put my thumb somewhere near the old winking starfish/rusty sheriff's badge/a-noos* [delete as appropriate] Please lighten up a little before you go nuts about that! and await my instructions. In real life, that's sort of how it goes. Not a perfect system, but she ends up with what she wants , when she wants it, without it seeming less than spontaneous when she does, or too intrusive when she doesn't.

That was too much information.

The thing about council workers banning Christmas is absolute lies, it has literally NEVER happened. It was invented by the tabloids several years ago. There has never been a single recorded episode of it even being suggested.

Much like your weird, hard to follow bullshit about a so-called branch of Feminism. What branch would this be - the sort that calls rape rape? Because I thought that was just being a normal, non-rape apologist human, nothing to do with Feminism.

Or by nrand pf Feminism, do you mean 'women who dare disagree woth me and plint out the obvious flaws in my arguments'?

And newsflash! Your penis doesn't make you the decision-maker on how a discussion should take shape.

o.k. Well to give you a real life example:

I worked for a company (investment Bank) which would not use the term Christmas and would not allow Decorations etc. in the name of equality. It had a very negative effect.

God, your bum puns are sooooo witty. Thank you for saving our delicate feminine eyes and minds.

Well,you used the example of council workersbanning Xmas, like it was a well-known truth. Not your company's choice, the two are totally different.

2/5 for effort and backtracking.

I cba to rtft as I see it has got silly.

It's simple: if you don't want someone to do something, they don't do it.

If they continue to do the thing, kill them.

The end.

Look, all I've asked you to do is look at the outcomes.

The brand of feminism I refer to (and I've not dismissed your arguments) is the one which is so radical that it turns people (who should be naturally allied to the cause) off. aNd frankly, it's the sort which assumes that I'd belive that it's my right (because I'm a man) to dictate/decide how a discussion should progress. (which I never have)

It's really radical to suggest that people shouldn't do sexual acts without consent?

I'm a radical feminist, never been called one of them before, wow. However I don't think I am one, but if suggesting that sexual acts should be performed with consent from all parties involved and penetration without consent is rape, then I am very happy to be called one.

And who has said they belong to this particular brand of Feminism you are imagining we are all into? And what is this brand called, hmm? Before you say Radical Feminism, please be aware that RadFem is a very specific movement and identity, and does not merely mean 'very, very Feminist'.

Also, PMSL at saying that all you've asked us to do is look at the outcome (like, why is that your job?!), then saying that you've never acted like it's your right to dictate or decide how a discussion should progress.

Um, what?!